Popular Post Peter G Posted January 20, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 20, 2022 https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/bob-larkin-dazzler-1-cover-original-art-marvel-1981-/p/7270-40001.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515 John E., Will_K, Michael Browning and 3 others 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisco37 Posted January 20, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 20, 2022 3.4 million John E., tth2, TupennyConan and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E. Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 And there’s the Marvel 80s #1 cover. Twanj and tth2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartened Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Yeah, this is literally price-less to me. As in I wouldn't want it at any price LOL. Thankfully, different strokes for diff folks, knock yourselves out! Bird, vodou, szucchini and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotSuperPowers? Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 You can see it, and an interesting writeup about it here -Â https://www.instagram.com/p/CY9JPYzrphT/ RBerman, Michael Browning, John E. and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 If you go to a comic art show, Anthony sometimes has a table with a pile of loose junk on it, which can include the covers of crummy old paperbacks from the 1960’s-1970’s (and includes painted covers by comic artists). This one reminds me of a piece he couldn’t move for $600.  New School Fool and jjonahjameson11 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drummy Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 I like Dazzler just fine, but when I first saw this cover as a 14-year-old I couldn't reconcile this art style with what I already loved about Marvel Comics...therefore, I didn't much care for it (too jarring). Now I can see more clearly the artistic skill involved, but still wouldn't necessarily want it, as I have no nostalgic connection. But give me a Byrne page with Dazzler on it anytime! Dan Twanj 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 On 1/22/2022 at 8:55 AM, Drummy said: I like Dazzler just fine, but when I first saw this cover as a 14-year-old I couldn't reconcile this art style with what I already loved about Marvel Comics...therefore, I didn't much care for it (too jarring). Now I can see more clearly the artistic skill involved, but still wouldn't necessarily want it, as I have no nostalgic connection. But give me a Byrne page with Dazzler on it anytime! Dan From Wikipedia: "Dazzler was originally developed as a cross-promotional, multi-media creation between Casablanca Records and Marvel Comics until the tie-ins were dropped in 1980." She was a character, who, with DC's Looker, well-represented the shallowness of 1980's culture. Saturday Night Fever says it all.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 On 1/22/2022 at 6:44 AM, Rick2you2 said: If you go to a comic art show, Anthony sometimes has a table with a pile of loose junk on it, which can include the covers of crummy old paperbacks from the 1960’s-1970’s (and includes painted covers by comic artists). This one reminds me of a piece he couldn’t move for $600.  That doesn’t mean it’s bad art.  It’s a nice cover.  It just means comic fans don’t give AF about art that isn’t for comics. vodou and Michael Browning 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 On 1/22/2022 at 8:55 AM, Drummy said: I like Dazzler just fine, but when I first saw this cover as a 14-year-old I couldn't reconcile this art style with what I already loved about Marvel Comics...therefore, I didn't much care for it (too jarring). Now I can see more clearly the artistic skill involved, but still wouldn't necessarily want it, as I have no nostalgic connection. But give me a Byrne page with Dazzler on it anytime! Dan Your 14 year old mind couldn’t understand why there were no black lines! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 ^ It does have a softer edge.  Maybe they were hoping some girls would pick up the book too. John E. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Browning Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 This is absolutely one of the most classic covers from the 1980s and I am shocked that the owner is actually selling it. Wow, I know a whole lot of people who will be going for this one because Dazzler art is highly sought after these days -- and this is the piece all Dazzler collectors want. A bunch of us have been trying to get this one for years. There is no better image that exemplifies that wild disco era. This is one of those great artworks that has a lot of nostalgia to go with it and it is also one of the most memorable covers that will undoubtably sell very high. Bronty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 On 1/22/2022 at 9:28 AM, Rick2you2 said: "Dazzler was originally developed as a cross-promotional, multi-media creation between Casablanca Records and Marvel Comics until the tie-ins were dropped in 1980."  That's interesting, didn't know that. I wonder "who" Casablanca had in mind to "be" Dazzler IRL. Safe to assume live performances if they happened at all would be dubbed?   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 On 1/22/2022 at 9:47 AM, Bronty said: That doesn’t mean it’s bad art.  It’s a nice cover.  It just means comic fans don’t give AF about art that isn’t for comics. Honestly, it doesn't do anything positive for me. Yes, the artist has a skill set, but the whole disco/1980's scene to me was flashy but flat. If it were a poster of the period, it works. As a part of the period I lived in, no thank you. As a comic book cover? It doesn't pull at me to buy what is inside, and shouldn't that be the real test of whether a cover is good or not? Does it sell the contents? Anthony's similarly had art on his table that shows skill, but that didn't make it worth buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) On 1/22/2022 at 1:31 PM, Rick2you2 said: Honestly, it doesn't do anything positive for me. Yes, the artist has a skill set, but the whole disco/1980's scene to me was flashy but flat. If it were a poster of the period, it works. As a part of the period I lived in, no thank you. As a comic book cover? It doesn't pull at me to buy what is inside, and shouldn't that be the real test of whether a cover is good or not? Does it sell the contents? Anthony's similarly had art on his table that shows skill, but that didn't make it worth buying. Blah blah blah.  I talk to comic collectors and they don’t get paintings.  Like, they are all coloured and stuff.   I talk to collectors of game art or magic art and they don’t want black and white pieces - trash with no Color? Its just what the collector pools are used to. Nothing more nothing less.   One is not better than the other.   One is the norm in its genre, and one isn’t. Sometimes comic art collectors find painted work a little scary, or hard to understand, and just not what they are expecting.   There’s nothing wrong with buying based on what you are most comfortable with, but understand that generally preferring drawings to paintings is a peculiarity only found in comic art, and that line art typically sells for a fraction in other markets.   My guess is that your discomfort with the work when we peel it back, is simply based on it not looking like what you expect a comic cover to look like.  It’s a lovely illo . Edited January 22, 2022 by Bronty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaykin Stevens Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 On 1/22/2022 at 3:51 PM, vodou said: That's interesting, didn't know that. I wonder "who" Casablanca had in mind to "be" Dazzler IRL. Safe to assume live performances if they happened at all would be dubbed?   I think she was originally intended to be black. JRJR was said to have been basing her on Grace Jones, also an influence on how Rogue looked originally in Avengers Annual #10. The people developing a Dazzler movie project insisted Marvel made her look more like Bo Derek. vodou 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Wow!  Cool info.  I didn’t know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post fsumavila Posted January 22, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) Dazz was originally supposed to be black, because JRjr designed her that way. It's why her dialogue in X-men 130 sounded different; Claremont thought she was supposed to be a black character. i interviewed Romita Jr among others involved with Dazzler's origin story for this video essay I did for SyFy  Edited January 22, 2022 by fsumavila Will_K, Twanj, Michael Browning and 4 others 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) On 1/22/2022 at 4:23 PM, Bronty said: Blah blah blah.  I talk to comic collectors and they don’t get paintings.  Like, they are all coloured and stuff.   I talk to collectors of game art or magic art and they don’t want black and white pieces - trash with no Color? Its just what the collector pools are used to. Nothing more nothing less.   One is not better than the other.   One is the norm in its genre, and one isn’t. Sometimes comic art collectors find painted work a little scary, or hard to understand, and just not what they are expecting.   There’s nothing wrong with buying based on what you are most comfortable with, but understand that generally preferring drawings to paintings is a peculiarity only found in comic art, and that line art typically sells for a fraction in other markets.   My guess is that your discomfort with the work when we peel it back, is simply based on it not looking like what you expect a comic cover to look like.  It’s a lovely illo . Not at all. I like painted works and covers when I can find one. Paint has layers of complexity which you just don't get with CYMK. What I don't like is the disco era or that cover. It doesn't particularly promote the story or tell me anything about the subject except to expect guest stars in the firmament of a fundimentally flat period of time where Gordan Gecko was real. The one below doesn't tell me anything significant either, except it looks way cooler. Edited January 23, 2022 by Rick2you2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...